Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28640244›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2018

Systematic design and comparison of expanded carrier screening panels.

Kyle A Beauchamp, Dale Muzzey, Kenny K Wong, Gregory J Hogan, Kambiz Karimi, Sophie I Candille, Nikita Mehta, Rebecca Mar-Heyming, K Eerik Kaseniit, H Peter Kang and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyle A BeauchampCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Dale MuzzeyCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Kenny K WongCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Gregory J HoganCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Kambiz KarimiCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Sophie I CandilleCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Nikita MehtaCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Rebecca Mar-HeymingCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
K Eerik KaseniitCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
H Peter KangCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Eric A EvansCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
James D GoldbergCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Gabriel A LazarinCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Imran S HaqueCounsyl, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeThe recent growth in pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening (ECS) has raised questions about how such panels might be designed and evaluated systematically. Design principles for ECS panels might improve clinical detection of at-risk couples and facilitate objective discussions of panel choice.MethodsGuided by medical-society statements, we propose a method for the design of ECS panels that aims to maximize the aggregate and per-disease sensitivity and specificity across a range of Mendelian disorders considered serious by a systematic classification scheme. We evaluated this method retrospectively using results from 474,644 de-identified carrier screens. We then constructed several idealized panels to highlight strengths and limitations of different ECS methodologies.ResultsBased on modeled fetal risks for "severe" and "profound" diseases, a commercially available ECS panel (Counsyl) is expected to detect 183 affected conceptuses per 100,000 US births. A screen's sensitivity is greatly impacted by two factors: (i) the methodology used (e.g., full-exon sequencing finds more affected conceptuses than targeted genotyping) and (ii) the detection rate of the screen for diseases with high prevalence and complex molecular genetics (e.g., fragile X syndrome).ConclusionThe described approaches enable principled, quantitative evaluation of which diseases and methodologies are appropriate for pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening.

Indexed as

FemaleGenetic Association StudiesGenetic Carrier ScreeningGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGenomicsGuideline AdherenceHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28640244
PMCPMC5763154
OpenAlexW2951507924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.